Dozens of Cars were vandalized and damaged in Paulding
County in the overnight hours of Tuesday March 7, 2017 into
the early morning hours of Wednesday March 8, 2017 as two
youths and a juvenile cruised several subdivisions wielding
baseball bats

Over 70 vehicles were damaged by rocks and baseball bats in
various locations within Paulding County by 18 year olds
Kevin Patrick Miceli (left) of Dallas, Tristan Keith (right)
of
Hiram, GA and
an unnamed 16 year-old from Dallas. All three were
charged with multiple counts of criminal damage to property
(second degree). The two youths and a juvenile will be
charged with every single incident they participated in,
according to the PCSO release.

The incidents appear to have been sporadic in nature and not
concentrated to one specific area of the county and
detectives said the suspects appeared to have aimlessly
drove around the county throwing rocks at vehicles that were
parked near or on the sides of streets in many subdivisions
and on county roads. In some instances, the suspects
actually stopped their vehicle and got out smashing car
windows with a baseball bat. We also discovered that they
damaged many mailboxes and even drove over trash cans in
some neighborhoods. In one instance, they even threw a rock
at one of our marked patrol cars while it was parked at the
home of the Deputy.

Key to solving the case was home surveillance footage and
the effort of detectives to solve the crimes quickly

As the investigation continues, the aforementioned suspects
will be charged with additional crimes as well as numerous
counts of each crime.

The PCSO expects additional victims to come forward and
authorities do not have an exact count of how many victims
there actually are.

As always, if you have any additional information, or
believe you may have been a victimized, please call
detectives with the Criminal Investigations Division of the
Paulding County Sheriff’s Office at (770) 443- 3015.

And the youths are charged with crimes as adults. That is not the issue. I mean, what do you people want me to do in objective news columns... write that the people arrested who are under age 25 were the seed of Satan? or if they're over 25, Satan himself?

The point is if you are describing a youth under 18, that is a juvenile ...(See the story posted today). We don't name them nor do we publish their picture as a general rule.

The use of the word youth is descriptive to the reader because it establishes that the person who committed the crime is a young person whose brain, by all accounts, has not fully developed. This is recognized world-wide by those who have been educated. To wit: It is a fact; not a partisan editorial comment. Educated people speak that way.

Indeed, why would any of you wish to confer the descriptor "Men" on these two youths who showed no maturity at all. I actually find that an insult to men and adults in general.

BTW: If adults (aged 25 or older) pull this kind of stupid cheese, I reserve the right to refer to them as 'the accused', the perpetrator, the suspect, the criminal, etc. instead of calling them 'men.' In fact, I think you'll find that I do that much more often than not.

IMO, you folks are showing us who you are and it ain't pretty.

pubby

PS: As far as referring to the alleged as the alleged perpetrator or suspect or, if they have a record, criminal ... I've been doing that for literally 40 years and nobody said anything.

It is bullcheeze to call a person a man because they turn 18 as that is arbitrary as hell. In fact, for many years as I was growing up, the age of majority - when you can vote - was 21.

I can't get no satisfaction ... and he can't be a man 'cause he doesn't smoke, the same cigarette as me - I can't get no ... no, no, no.

pubby

PS: Or am I to understand you folks really believe to be a man you have to bash cars and steal cheeze? I actually want to put the definition of man as far away from the shenanigans of these folks as I possibly can. I feel that is being responsible whereas you folks just want to glorify and elevate these youthful perpetrators whose brains are obviously not mature to the level of men. Shame on you.

You are making an argument that doesn't hold water. get over it. 18 year old's who commit crimes aren't little babies or young children. they are grown adult men who'll get sent to prison in a heartbeat by our local judicial system. If you don't believe me, ask our local Barney Fife who's itching to give some mouthy 18 year old a trip to the big house in the back of his patrol car. he's doesn't drop them off at the daycare center. They go to jail, directly to jail (and they don't collect $200 as they pass GO either.

I've always thought a good lashing with a buggy whip would benefit you immensely.(Rhett Butler speaking to Miss Scarlett)

Obviously, it has been decades since you read the definition of youth in any dictionary. While dictionaries don't typically state ages - the numeric age that defines youth is too arbitrary - they speak of the time between adolescence and maturity; which varies for most folks. Maturity usually comes at about age 25 ... i.e. when most reasonable folks start settling down.

Of course there are some cultures where a girl becomes a woman and is married off at age 12. In that world, I guess one might think the age of 18 is fully grown up. However, the high divorce rate of those who marry in their youth, the likelihood of death due to stupidity (jumping off bridges into 2-feet of water; driving recklessly, fighting at the drop of a hat, riding crotch rockets at 100mph) and otherwise acting immaturely is something that most expect to vanish when one finally reaches 'maturity.'

What you are arguing is that maturity occurs in humans at the date the state legislature asserts is the age of majority. Like most things, the legislature set the age at 18 as per tradition and has nothing to do with the attainment of maturity. (Do you agree we should have child labor laws? Those who opposed those laws at the turn of the last century had in their mind the idea that children were just 'small adults' and could be employed in dangerous jobs that the 'boss' felt they were best qualified because of they had small hands and could repair looms while they were running ... if they were careful ... and if they weren't - tough if they lost their hand or their life.)

BTW: As you can tell, the term youth is so amorphous that it has no legal meaning. Hence, its use does not reject the fact that the youthful perpetrators are subject to the law as an adult.

Oh, and I can see also that many so-called adults are immature. Just look around.

Maturity has nothing to do with it. Age is what matters. Pubby, I do hate to break the bad news to you, but the law defines who is an adult and who is a juvenile. Two of the folks arrested were 18 and as such, will be sent to a men's prison upon conviction. (regardless of what liberal dictionary you can come up with).

Speaking of dictionary, my favorite is the Urban Dictionary (urbandictionary.com). There are some interesting entries under the definition of youth.

Maturity has nothing to do with it. Age is what matters.

I've always thought a good lashing with a buggy whip would benefit you immensely.(Rhett Butler speaking to Miss Scarlett)

Maturity has nothing to do with it. Age is what matters. Pubby, I do hate to break the bad news to you, but the law defines who is an adult and who is a juvenile. Two of the folks arrested were 18 and as such, will be sent to a men's prison upon conviction. (regardless of what liberal dictionary you can come up with).

Speaking of dictionary, my favorite is the Urban Dictionary (urbandictionary.com). There are some interesting entries under the definition of youth.

Maturity has nothing to do with it. Age is what matters.

You are confusing youth with adolescence ... Hell, if they were under age 18, it would be problematic - I might get my butt sued - to publish their names. No one was disputing that the two older kids would be charged as adults and for that matter, the 16 year old could be charged as an adult as well. Youth is not a legal definition, it is what I've asserted; a general description of age between adolescence and full maturity ... i.e. aged between 18-22,23,24 or possibly 25 ... I usually reserve the use of the word 'youth' in this context to those aged 21 and under ... but the older age only when other perpetrators are in their teens.

I know you were just trying to bust my balls on this but you ought to choose another point 'cause it reflects not only on your lack of tolerance but your limited vocabulary.

Pubby is not attempting to redefine anything. Objectivity requires appropriate use of a standard lexicon void of pathos and a degree of ethos inherent in "real journalism." It is very unlike the pathos infused replies of individuals that pander to the intellectually and objectively challenged.